Well then, show me how I misunderstood his statement, and when you are done, I will show you how I understood it perfectly and why my response was on point.

What he said was "Declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so."
That means the thing may or may not be self-evident, but the declaration does not make it so.

Your answer is to the statement he did not make of denying that it was self-evident.
Your chair example is as though his statement was equivalent to "Declaring something self-evident makes it not so", which it is not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(25-01-2014 10:25 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote: The peoblem with your chair example is that you're not just saying there's a chair in the room. You are saying that because there's a chair in the room, we can conclude it was built by leprechauns and sold in Atlantis. Then you're declaring ALL of that to be self-evident and demanding proof from ME that you're wrong. It doesn't work like that.

Fail.

Try again.

I reject your effort to dismiss my point. You may be old enough to be my grandfather, but that doesn't give you the right to treat me like a child. You have every right to be a jerk to a stranger online, but I have no obligation to entertain you.

(25-01-2014 10:18 AM)Free Wrote: Well then, show me how I misunderstood his statement, and when you are done, I will show you how I understood it perfectly and why my response was on point.

What he said was "Declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so."
That means the thing may or may not be self-evident, but the declaration does not make it so.

Your answer is to the statement he did not make of denying that it was self-evident.
Your chair example is as though his statement was equivalent to "Declaring something self-evident makes it not so", which it is not.

Okay, so let's break down what I said.

"Okay, so if I see a chair in the room, and then say, "There's a chair in the room," <--the declaration, analogizing his "Declare."

"I should suppose that the chair is NOT in the room?" <-- analogizes the property of non-existence to counter his statement of "doesn't make it so," and suggests that I should then suppose that the subject (chair) which has self evident properties does not actually exist.

So, since the analogy begins with a declaration of "There's a chair in the room" to compare to what Tacitis wrote, and the subject matter was all about the existing self-evident chair being compared to the existence of what Tacitis wrote which is also self evident, should I then suppose that despite the existence of what Tacitus wrote (and also the existence of chair in the analogy) that it/they may not actually exist?

When things exist they are self-evident. Declaration of their existence does nothing to change their self-evident existence.

So I should suppose that just because Tacitus' is self-evident that it's not actually self-evident?

(25-01-2014 10:31 AM)Chas Wrote: What he said was "Declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so."
That means the thing may or may not be self-evident, but the declaration does not make it so.

Your answer is to the statement he did not make of denying that it was self-evident.
Your chair example is as though his statement was equivalent to "Declaring something self-evident makes it not so", which it is not.

Okay, so let's break down what I said.

"Okay, so if I see a chair in the room, and then say, "There's a chair in the room," <--the declaration, analogizing his "Declare."

"I should suppose that the chair is NOT in the room?" <-- suggests that I should then suppose that the subject (chair) which has self evident properties does not actually exist.

So, since the analogy begins with a declaration of "There's a chair in the room" to compare to what Tacitis wrote, and the subject matter was all about the existing self-evident chair being compared to the existence of what Tacitis wrote which is also self evident, should I then suppose that despite the existence of what Tacitus wrote (and also the existence of chair in the analogy) that it/they may not actually exist?

When things exist they are self-evident. Declaration of their existence do nothing to change their self-evident existence.

So I should suppose that just because Tacitus' is self-evident that it's not actually self-evident?

Really?

You continue to miss the point and have compounded it with a fallacy.

You think something is self-evident while someone else does not. You declaring it as self-evident does not make it self-evident. It may or may not be, but your declaration adds nothing to its truth value.

Your discussion above is fallacious because you assume the truth of what you are setting out to demonstrate.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(25-01-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote: On its own, Tacitus proves nothing. But as part of the historical record, it's another piece to the puzzle that adds to the equation which adds up to favoring existence.

For the sake of hypothetical, suppose that Jesus had never existed, but Christianity as we know it did - the essence of the mythicist position (with many variations on detail).

With Tacitus writing ~90 years after the fact, and fully familiar with Christian lore, does what he writes in any way undermine the supposition? I say it does not. It's completely consistent, because Tacitus makes no indication that his information comes from any source other than Christians themselves.

So we have Tacitus, and as a body of evidence, it fits perfectly with both a historical and a mythicist position.

Evidence that is consistent with two diametrically opposed propositions, is simply not relevent to determinig which proposition is more likely. You could just as easily use Tacistus as part of the body of evidence of a mythicist position, because it's consistent with that position.

"I should suppose that the chair is NOT in the room?" <-- suggests that I should then suppose that the subject (chair) which has self evident properties does not actually exist.

So, since the analogy begins with a declaration of "There's a chair in the room" to compare to what Tacitis wrote, and the subject matter was all about the existing self-evident chair being compared to the existence of what Tacitis wrote which is also self evident, should I then suppose that despite the existence of what Tacitus wrote (and also the existence of chair in the analogy) that it/they may not actually exist?

When things exist they are self-evident. Declaration of their existence do nothing to change their self-evident existence.

So I should suppose that just because Tacitus' is self-evident that it's not actually self-evident?

Really?

You continue to miss the point and have compounded it with a fallacy.

You think something is self-evident while someone else does not. You declaring it as self-evident does not make it self-evident. It may or may not be, but your declaration adds nothing to its truth value.

Your discussion above is fallacious because you assume the truth of what you are setting out to demonstrate.

You are sitting there writing to me and should I then think that your existence is somehow not self-evident?

(25-01-2014 09:29 AM)Free Wrote: On its own, Tacitus proves nothing. But as part of the historical record, it's another piece to the puzzle that adds to the equation which adds up to favoring existence.

For the sake of hypothetical, suppose that Jesus had never existed, but Christianity as we know it did - the essence of the mythicist position (with many variations on detail).

With Tacitus writing ~90 years after the fact, and fully familiar with Christian lore, does what he writes in any way undermine the supposition? I say it does not. It's completely consistent, because Tacitus makes no indication that his information comes from any source other than Christians themselves.

So we have Tacitus, and as a body of evidence, it fits perfectly with both a historical and a mythicist position.

Evidence that is consistent with two diametrically opposed propositions, is simply not relevent to determinig which proposition is more likely. You could just as easily use Tacistus as part of the body of evidence of a mythicist position, because it's consistent with that position.

On the contrary, if Tacitus got his information from the Christians, he likely would have used the Hebrew name of Yeshua/Jesus other than the Greek and/or Latin name/title of Christus/Chrestus in identifying him.

All through the works of Tacitus he fails to identify one single Jew by their Jewish name. This was likely caused by his inability to translate the Semitic Hebrew characters into the alphabet if he had any of those documents , and also there is no evidence that Tacitus could speak any Semitic language.

The words Messiah and Jesus are alphabetic translations of Hebrew names and titles. In Greek and Latin, Christus/Chrestus are the virtual equivalent, and were words that Tacitus understood.

The odds are that the Romans knew damn few Jewish names of anybody, but a title of Christus/Chrestus- which carries the connotation of being a king- is something they would indeed understand in their own language.

So, if Tacitus knew or even understood that Jesus/Yeshua was the actual name of the leader of the Christian sect, and if he knew how to translate the Hebrew name into the Latin at that time, he likely would have used the name of "Jesus/Yeshua instead of Christus.

But there's no evidence whatsoever that he knew anything about the name of "Jesus," and no evidence that he got his info from any Christians, which he obviously hated according to his statements about them.

Also, if he had named him Jesus instead of Christus, then the argument that he got his info from Christians would be more compelling because that's what the Christians called him.